Lionsgate Shares Fall On Weak Tyler Perry Open And Early Criticism Of ‘Divergent’

The stock price closed -5.1% as worrisome developments from the weekend overwhelmed the announcement this morning of a 5 cent-a-share quarterly dividend. Lionsgate was teed up for a weak day after Tyler Perry’s Single Moms Club underperformed in its opening weekend. It generated about $8M domestically, making it Perry’s first film to open with less than $10M. It also was far less than the Street anticipated. For example, MKM Partners’ Eric Handler forecast $15M while Wells Fargo’s Marci Ryvicker predicted $17.5M. Investors might have overlooked the disappointment if it hadn’t been accompanied by early raspberries from the Hollywood trades for Divergent, the action-adventure film that Lionsgate hopes to turn into a Twilight- or Hunger Games-sized franchise after it opens this weekend. Variety criticized the film’s “uncertain sense of setting, bloated plot, drab visual style and solid yet underwhelming lead turns from Shailene Woodley and Theo James,” while The Hollywood Reporter called the film “clunky” and “almost unrelentingly grim.” Several analysts have told investors not to worry: There’s “enough tracking and Fandango visibility on Divergent‘s appeal to fickle Young Adult (YA) audiences to diffuse any plausibility for a box office hard landing,” Wunderlich Securities’ Martthew Harrigan said last week. Evercore’s Alan Gould also cited the strong tracking Friday when he raised his earnings per share estimate for Lionsgate’s fiscal year ending March 2015 by 5 cents to $2. He predicts the film will generate $45M in profits. “If the film is successful, we would not be surprised if [Lionsgate] converts the 3-book franchise into a 4-movie franchise similar to Hunger Games,” he says.

Tyler is DONE. Stick a fork in him. Smh. I hope this guy saved his money bc if he thought that this low brow schtick he was shilling would last in the long run, he’d sorely mistaken. And honestly, he can take desperate a$$ Oprah with him. Black folks finally have OPTIONS of films to spend their hard earned $$$ on thanks to Will Packard, steve McQueen, Ava Duvernay etc etc. I say good riddance.

Dalt • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

Tyler is trying to be a romantic lead. And he’s bombing. He tried to be an action hero with Alex Cross and that bombed. He’s Madea. And that’s it. Get ready for Madea’s Labor Day.

Summer • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

I know some young Actors who went in on this. Why do they keep picking young men with nice looking features but the personality and depth of a spoon. They couldn’t have done well in the casting process. Next time, look outside the box, or your Model rolodex. It’s obvious your way is not paying off.

Gia • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

Theo James cannot act. He’s alright to look at but a horrible actor who couldn’t even lead GoldenBoy let alone a box office film

St • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

Uhm. So ordinary people who watched trailers said they don’t care about the movie, because it looks chap and boring. Now movie critics trashed it. It has 14% on Rotten Tomatoes with 1 positive review and 6 negative.

Do they still claim that it will be monster hit with some 50-60 millions opening and 150 millions overall? Because all I see is another Mortal Instruments, I am number Four and Vampire Academy. How on earth it will make all those millions they predict is beyond me. Well crap movies do make lots of money sometimes and no one understands how. Well at least Twilight had Pattinson that teen girls went crazy about. No one is getting crazy about Divergent actors.

Divergent can suddenly make those money, who knows. But I really don’t understand how. No one likes this movie, no one waits to see it yet studio says it will make loads of money.

Mohammed • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

I’m surprised Twilight and The Hunger Games books and films even made as much money as they did, being as sh*** as they were. Then came the even bigger pile of sh** that was the Divergent books, and now films.

InTheWoods • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

Have you seen Catching Fire?

Even if you didn’t like it personally, I think it would be difficult to call that film a piece of s***.

the black chick... • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

You obviously didn’t READ The Hunger Games trilogy. I WANTED to hate it. But it is genius Young Adult fare with rich characterizations and a non-stop plot. It is the sheer definition of “page-turner.” The first movie was crap, but the second almost lived up to the book. Almost. And with dang near every critic loving it, that basically tells me you must either be the most critical person in the universe or just a plain ole “hater.” I’m banking on the second.

Anyonymous • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

It’s also a rip-off of Battle Royale.

Will Graham • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

And Battle Royale is a rip-off of The Most Dangerous Game and Lord Of The Flies

Maximus • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

Please put away this tired point. Yes, BATTLE ROYALE and THE HUNGER GAMES are similar in premise, but they are ultimately quite different in execution and plot. And let’s face it: The idea of gladiatorial entertainment has been around since, well, the gladiators.

Fan • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

Who would have thought you’d ever have looked back at the 1980s as a halcyon period of movie making? Hollywood originated stories that travelled the world. They could be made for under $30M and they’d be profitable real fast. If they tanked, the stakes weren’t that high.
Wall Street needs to stop listening to the flimflam hucksters running the studios and start asking some real questions. Here’s a few to get you started:
1. Why can’t you make sub $50 million movies that travel internationally?
(And if the answer is because it’s hard work coming up with innovative, new stories that travel. It’s easier to make one cookie cutter movie for $200M than it is to make 10 good movies for $20M, then the response should be to fire that exec and hire someone who is willing to work hard for their money)
2. How long is the international market going to support the inflated budgets of US movies?
(if the answer is indefinitely, fire the exec. International markets are becoming increasingly saturated with US and more importantly domestic product. As international producers acquire skills, they will be able to compete with the output of US studios. Watch out for China and Russia in particular)
3. Why do production costs continue to rise?
(if the answer is because things are more expensive, fire the exec)
Stars are no longer paid 8 figure salaries. Directors are no longer paid as much and so on. Digital technology has meant greater efficiency and cost saving on set. CG houses have been screwed to the wall on their fees. Film tax credits of between 10% and 40% exist all over the world. Why have studios not been able to bring budgets down? A Hollywood studio will typically add 30% to 50% when compared to a similar independent production. Why?
4. Why have P&A budgets risen?
An old 35 print might have cost $15k – $25k depending on volume. A DCP costs around $3k to $4K. Given the 75% drop in the cost of physical media, why have P&A costs only risen? Why are the studios not taking advantage of targeted marketing to reach audiences, instead of relying on blanket saturation through expensive TV and poster campaigns?
5. How many Battleship or John Carter style flops would it take to bring this studio to its knees?

Hollywood has become a graveyard of ideas where zombie executives pay huge sums to cannibalise brands from other media or from Hollywood’s glorious past when it originated movies. Need For Speed – fail. Total Recall reboot – fail. Ender’s Game – fail. So many failed adaptations and remakes, but still they keep going at it. Bring budgets under control – and not Lone Ranger style from $250m to $225m. I mean set a challenge of making a hit for under $40m – it can be done. Don’t be afraid to originate. And please get the marketing costs under control. This industry spends an obscene amount of money each week marketing product that gets more free publicity than almost every other industry put together.

Wall Street should be activists, but get under the skin of these studios, because business as usual isn’t going to working longer.

Tessa • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

Consider The Book Thief…. a beautiful well adapted movie. It was a relief to watch this film and see them get it right.

John • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

I agree with everything you say and would love nothing more then to see the tentpole obsessed executives sacked. Sadly, that wont likely happen anytime soon and even if they were sacked and replaced with an exec who is pushing to save the middle budget films, that new exec would not likley last long, especially if those mid-budget films bomb. What the studios need to realize is that the success of films like Captain Phillips, American Hustle, Prisoners, Argo, Moneyball, Social Network and so forth shows that there is a crowd for these films and they CAN bring profits both domestically and internationally.

Albert • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

To everyone assuming that Divergent is going to fail because of it’s rating on Rotten Tomatoes, consider this: The Twilight Saga: New Moon, a film that has a 28% (which, frankly, is well deserved) on the same site, grossed $26.3 million on its opening night. Also, New moon’s score was based off 216 critic reviews, while Divergent’s was based off only 7. So clearly the film’s review will have little-to-no affect on the box office.

Umm... • on Mar 17, 2014 1:13 pm

That was a sequel. That’s why it did so well, even if it was crap. Also, the DIVERGENT books do not have the same following as HUNGER GAMES or TWILIGHT. Additionally, no one gives 2 poops about the lead actors. Sure, Kate Winslet is great. Shailene Woodley, Jai Courtney, and Theo James? Who cares about them? Sorry, this is going to be a major flop.